The schedule:

9 a.m. – Jenny Webb, “Slumbering Voices: Death and Textuality in Second Nephi”
10 a.m. – George Handley, “On the Moral Challenges of Reading Scripture”
11 a.m. – Kim Matheson, “Works of Darkness: Secret Combinations and Covenant Displacement in the Book of Mormon”
12 p.m. – break for lunch
1 p.m. – Joseph M. Spencer, “Nephi, Isaiah, and Europe”
2 p.m. – Julie Frederick, “Seals, Symbols, and Sacred Texts: Sealing in the Book of Mormon”
3 p.m. – Heather and Grant Hardy, “How Nephi Shapes His Readers’ Perceptions of Isaiah”
4 p.m. – Sam Brown, Respondent

Any questions about the conference can be posted here. Feel free to pass this information along to anyone else. If you would like a file of the official poster, simply put a note here, and we’ll arrange that.

At first glance, vv. 27-35 seem like an odd interruption; what happened to all the talk of the future sealed book and its readers? Or the sins of latter-day Gentiles? Are we back in the political controversies of the 8^th century, with Isaiah warning of the dangers of entangling military alliances? Given both the presumed difficulty of engraving upon the plates and Nephi’s self-consciously intentional writing in the 2 Ne. 25-30 segment (cf. 25:1-8), the real question for readers here seems to be why Nephi includes the passage at all.

Perhaps the best way to attempt a response to this question is to follow a systematic strategy for reading Nephi reading Isaiah. Our first step is to identify any glosses added by Nephi. In addition to a few grammatical shifts, he offers the following (minimal) interjections:

v. 27 – “But behold, I will show unto them,” saith the Lord of Hosts, “that I know all their works” (in response to the wicked whose “works are in the dark,” who ask “who knoweth us?”)

v. 28 – “But behold,” saith the Lord of Hosts, “I will show unto the children of men that . . .”

v. 31 – “For assuredly as the Lord liveth they shall see that . . .”

What these all seem to have in common is an insistence that the Lord is actively demonstrating something that will come as a surprise to many, perhaps especially to those who are proud, stubborn, and disregard the poor (i.e., the latter-day Gentiles of 2 Ne. 26-28, in the context provided by Nephi).

Next, we can take note of the immediate context. The fact that the two primary themes from 26:20-27:19—of the latter-day Gentiles and the sealed book—are again picked up in chapter 28 immediately following Nephi’s quotation of Isaiah 29:15-24 may suggest that Nephi thinks there is a closer thematic connection than first meets the eye.

Thirdly, we can identify verbal connections between the Isaiah 29 verses and Nephi’s interpretive comments that both precede and follow the inserted quotation. For example, the “wo” statement which begins vs. 27 will be extended in the list of woes at 28:24-29 (and at 28:24-29 Nephi appears to be connecting both of these to Jacob’s teachings as well as to Isaiah’s earlier prophecies: the list of woes there is reminiscent of Jacob’s wo pronouncements at 2 Ne. 9:28-38 as well as of Isaiah’s own at 2 Ne. 15: 8-23. This, of course, is in accordance with the “three witnesses” strategy that runs throughout 2 Ne. 25-30, which was explicitly introduced at 2 Ne. 11:1-3). Similarly, those that “seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord” in v. 27 are explicitly identified by Nephi as latter-day Gentiles in 28:9; and the “works . . . in the dark” (also of v. 27) echo the “works of darkness” mentioned at 26:10, 22 (cf. v. 23), which are again explicitly identified at 28:9. According to v. 30, “the meek also shall increase . . . and the poor among men shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel,” even though they come in for rough treatment at the hands of the Gentiles at 26:20 and 28:11-14. Those that “turn aside the just for a thing of naught” at v. 32 are noted by Nephi in 28:16; and the promise that “they that erred in spirit shall come to understanding” (v. 35) echoes Nephi’s earlier assertion at 25:7 that because of the plainness of his own prophecies “no man can err.” Likewise, the follow-up statement in v. 35 that “they that murmured shall learn doctrine” (v. 35), contrasts with the false doctrines and “precepts of men” described at 26:20, 29; 27:25; 28:3-11, 14-15, 26.

Our fourth move might be to identify recurrent themes within the passage itself. Again and again in vv. 27-35 we see reversals: the cedars of Lebanon will become a field (according to the Anchor Bible, this environmental change is indicative of eschatological reordering, in line with the prophesied visitation of the Lord of Hosts in Isa. 29:6//2 Ne. 27:2); on a human scale, the deaf will hear, the blind will see, the meek will increase, and the poor will rejoice, the “terrible one is brought to naught, and the scorner is consumed.” Jacob (the House of Israel), who was once ashamed, will praise God when he sees his posterity and God’s work among them. And finally, those “that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn [true] doctrine.” These radical reversals will seem unbelievable to many, who will assume that they cannot last, even as they take place before their eyes: “And they also say, ‘Surely, your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay.’” (Note that Nephi adds the introductory phrase “and they also say,” indicating that these will be complaints that come from those whose works are in the dark. In Isaiah, it is not clear who is saying this.)

Finally, we are ready to look for something that might pull all of these observations together. At this level of analysis, things will be more debatable, so let us be very clear about our hermeneutical presuppositions. Rather than seeing Nephi as haphazardly throwing things together at random, we assume that he was a careful, conscientious author who had a coherent message in mind. We consider our task as interpreters as trying to recover his intentions (while acknowledging the difficulties and unavoidable limitations of that process), as opposed to using his words as a springboard for our own creative insights or practical applications.

With all this in mind, it seems possible to us that Nephi here is using the words of Isaiah to continue his discussion of the relation between the latter-day Gentiles and the sealed book—at least part of which will become the future Book of Mormon. Verse 27, which speaks of some confusion in distinguishing the producer from the product is the first key: “For shall the work say of him that made it, ‘He made me not’? Or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, ‘He hath no understanding’?” To most outsiders, the Book of Mormon—with its theological anachronisms, awkward diction, and lengthy quotations from the King James Bible—screams out, I was not made by an ancient prophet named Mormon (or perhaps, I am not the word/work of God). The evidence of forgery is so obvious that it hardly merits discussion. At the same time, it does not seem on cursory review to be an especially impressive piece of work; the text itself, they assume, stands as a witness that Joseph Smith had very little in the way of understanding. But if Nephi intended v. 27 as a reference to the Book of Mormon, then this dismissive attribution will actually represent a “turning of things upside down” (v. 27), and the rest of the passage falls into place.

Nephi’s gloss in the middle of the verse (“‘But behold, I will show unto them,’ saith the Lord of Hosts, ‘that I know all their works’”) reflects the fact that the Book of Mormon itself, in 2 Ne. 26-28, demonstrates that God knows exactly what the faithless Gentiles of the last days are up to. He knows all about their “works in the dark,” which they try to cloak with religion. This “I will show” insert (repeated in vs. 28 as “I will show unto the children of men . . . ”) may also be echoing the Lord’s earlier statement at 27:21 “I will show unto the children of men that I am able to do mine own work,” thereby identifying who the “potter” or “framer” of the sealed book truly is.

The future change by which “the deaf hear the words of the book” (v. 29) is not just one reversal among many, but is a specific reference back to the sealed book of 27:6-23, which is the same book Nephi speaks of as soon as he ends his quotation of Isaiah: “The things which shall be written out of the book shall be of great worth unto the children of men, and especially unto our seed” (2 Ne. 28:2, with a connection to 2 Ne. 3 [a critical chapter on the future Book of Mormon] – “which shall be of great worth unto them, even to the bringing of them to the knowledge of the covenants which I have made with thy fathers” [2 Ne. 3:7].) This book will itself be the cause of the reversals which follow: the [spiritually] blind will see, the oppressed will find joy, the scoffers and critics (who seize upon minutia) will come to nothing. Those that err will come to understanding (cf. 25:7). In the end, again because of the Book of Mormon, the descendants of Israel (including the Lamanites), will recover their dignity and return to the correct worship of God, and many who have gone astray will find the truth.

We like this reading because it gives coherence to Nephi’s writing: he talks of a future book right before the lengthy quote at 27:24-35, and then he speaks about the same book right after he ends the quote (28:1-2). It makes sense that he is reading the Isaiah passage as focusing on the same topic. (We wish, however, that he had used the New English Bible, which takes the phrase “the work of my hand” in Isa. 29:23 as referring not to Israel’s posterity, but rather to a separate work of God, which might be interpreted as the Book of Mormon: “for his descendants will hallow my name when they see what I have done in their nation.”) Still, one might legitimately wonder whether this interpretation is ultimately correct or not. Is it really what Nephi had in mind, and if so, how would we know?

Final proof is very rare in hermeneutics. Most often plausibility is measured by utility: is this helpful? does it make sense of most of the data? are there obvious gaps or exceptions? But sometimes corroborating evidence presents itself. As mentioned above, one particular phrase from 2 Ne. 27:27-35, “and turn aside the just for a thing of naught,” shows up again in the next chapter: “Wo unto them that turn aside the just for a thing of naught, and revile against that which is good, and say, ‘That is of no worth!’” (28:16). As quoted here, the passage echoes both the phrase from Isa. 29 and also Nephi’s description earlier in the chapter (v. 2) that “the things which shall be written out of the [sealed] book shall be of great worth unto the children of men,” (Throughout Nephi’s writings, mention of things having “worth” is usually a reference to Joseph’s prophecy at 2 Ne. 3:7. ) When Nephi writes of “reviling against that which is good,” he is clearly speaking of the wise, learned, and rich (28:15) who will reject the Book of Mormon. So when he equates that action with “turning aside the just for a thing of naught,” it appears that he was reading “the just” in 27:32 as a code-word for the Book of Mormon (or perhaps for its authors, its translator, or its believers). Or in other words—combining Nephi’s recontextualization with the phrasing of the NIV—skeptical latter-day Gentiles who reject the Book of Mormon are like those who “with false testimony deprive the innocent of justice.”

Needless to say, this reading has made us quite impressed with Nephi’s rhetorical dexterity—we’d be interested in your comments: are we overreaching?

I. The structure of the reading for this week presents two distinct teachings that the Lord will say in the future to the unlearned man (Joseph Smith) to whom he will deliver the sealed book. The first saying, in verses 20-23 (starting with “then shall the Lord God say unto him . . . ”) is a response to the man’s confession, “I am not learned” in verse 19. The second, beginning with verse 24 (“and again it shall come to pass that the Lord shall say unto him . . .”), resumes the direct quotation from Isa. 29. It is clear here that at least verses 25-26//Isa. 29:14-15 are to be understood as the Lord’s direct instructions to the unlearned man—something that is not immediately evident from the original passage in Isaiah. Subsequent verses (2 Ne. 27: 27-35, the subject matter for next week’s discussion), seem to include both instruction by the Lord to the unlearned man interwoven with commentary by both Isaiah and Nephi. [Any paragraph that includes four parenthetical comments seems like it’s in trouble; there has to be a better way to write about complicated textual matters.]

We’ll consider each of these two sayings by the Lord in turn. The Lord begins in v. 20 by suggesting the reasons he has chosen an unlearned man to be the one to “read the words” of the sealed book: 1) because the learned have rejected them [see vv. 14, 18]; and 2) as a demonstration that the Lord is “able to do his own work,” that is, that those who accept the book will realize that the unlearned man has not produced it on his own but rather through the power of God. The second part of this first instruction to the unlearned man is to “touch not the things which are sealed” when he is reading the book (v. 21), which refers to the revelation of “all things from the foundation of the world unto the end thereof” described previously in verses 7 and 11. Once the unlearned man has read the words he has been commanded, and obtained witnesses (cf. vv. 1-14), the unlearned man is to seal up the book again so the Lord may preserve it until “all things” are to be revealed “unto the children of men” at a future time, in “the own due time of the Lord” (v. 22; cf. vv. 10-11). This subsequent revelation will also be brought forth in some miraculous fashion—that is, the first bringing forth of the book (by Joseph Smith) will in some manner become the type for which the final revelation of when the sealed words shall be read upon the house tops will be the antitype (v. 11)—since the Lord will then again demonstrate that he is “able to do his own work” (v. 21). He reiterates this typological orientation in verse 23: “I am a God of miracles, and I will show unto the world that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever.”

Nephi then returns to the underlying Isaiah text for the second set of instructions to the unlearned man, with a subtle indication that this is a follow-up response. Where Isa. 29:12-13 moves directly from: “I am not learned. Wherefore the Lord said . . .”, 2 Ne. 27: 19, 24 reads: “I am not learned . . . And again it shall come to pass that the Lord shall say unto him that shall read the words that shall be delivered him . . .” In both the original and in Nephi’s quotation, Isa. 29:13-14 expresses the Lord’s chastisement of those among whom he will proceed to do his marvelous work—“with their lips do honor me, but have removed their heart(s) far from me and their fear toward(s) me is taught by the precept(s) of men”—a description which echoes Nephi’s earlier prophecy of the Gentiles in the last days (26:20). The “wisdom of their wise” in v. 26 contrasts with the Lord’s previous assertion of his own wisdom (v. 22); and Nephi adds a chastisement of the learned (“their wise and learned”; v. 26), echoing their rejection of his words in vv. 15-18.

II. The second thing to note in these two directives which Nephi prophesies the Lord will one day deliver to Joseph Smith is the verbal correspondence between them and Nephi’s prior interpretive gloss. If the pattern we suggested a couple of weeks ago in considering how Nephi uses scriptural texts is valid regarding his composition of “off-text” material (and it may not be; but see the discussion for 2 Ne. 26:26-31), Nephi here seems to be treating the first saying (vv. 20-23) as an independent source. Whether this was a now-lost portion of Isaiah prophecy or a fresh revelation to Nephi, he seems to have had this quotation from the Lord in mind when he composed vv. 6-14.

Nephi appears to work phrases from vv. 20-23 into his introductory material in order to prepare readers for the text they are about to encounter. That is to say, much of the “off-text” discussion in 2 Ne. 27:6-18 seems motivated by the intention to forestall potential misapprehensions that might arise from reading the two directives cold. For example, the sealed things which are not to be touched, the words which are to be read, the witnesses which have been promised, the subsequent re-sealing of the book, and the specific meaning of the “all things” which are to be revealed at some future time are clearly identified. Additional overlapping words and phrases include: the learned, the own due time of the Lord, sealing up the book, and the equation of the Lord “proceed[ing] to bring forth the words of the book” in v. 14 with his “proceed[ing] to do a marvelous work and a wonder” in v. 26 (also linking the significance of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon to the future salvation of the Jews prophesied at 25:17). As we read it, the Lord’s directive in vv. 20-23 seems to be a source that is interpretively expanded in anticipation of its quotation rather than a summarization—put into the Lord’s words—of Nephi’s independent expansion of Isaiah 29. Perhaps the distinction makes little difference; either way, it serves primarily as a reiteration of particular prophetic content.

But here we seem to have ended up in the opposite situation from Kim, who began one of her posts by confessing that she didn’t really know what to make of the passage, and then went on to say some good things. When we started writing this entry we thought we had something to say, but now we’re not so sure. There seem, objectively, to be numerous phrasal connections between Nephi’s midrashic comments at 2 Ne. 27:6-14 and the injunction he attributes to the Lord in vv. 20-23. But why? Is Nephi preemptively commenting on a text he already has? Does God reveal a verbatim future quotation to Nephi at the very moment Nephi sets stylus to metal (a quotation that responds to what Nephi has just written)? Or does Nephi prophetically (i.e., with inspiration and authority) put words in God’s mouth that bring together concepts and phrases that he (Nephi) has already employed? Is it all just so much random repetition, or is there some kind of intentionality behind the echoes and allusions that are exhibited in the text (we much prefer the second of these last two options, but perhaps it is a matter of faith—at least until we can come up with more examples and patterns to use as evidence).

I’ll start with outlining the specific fulfillment of this prophecy through Martin Harris and Charles Anthon.  (The specificity of the prophecy, I think, requires an acknowledgment of the historical counterpart.  But since we are all quite familiar with it, I want to focus more on other things in the text.)

Vs. 15: “him to whom the Lord shall deliver the book” (Joseph Smith)
Vs. 15: “another” (to whom the above delivers the words=Martin Harris)
Vs. 15: “the learned” (Charles Anthon)

Vs. 13: “a few” who view the book (the three witnesses)
Vs. 14 “as many witnesses” (the eight witnesses)

Several things that I want to discuss topically:

The “book”: The Hebrew here is “sepher” used throughout Isa 29:11-12.  Sepher’s meaning is a little more general than just book or scroll.  It seems to refer to any official document or record (i.e. anything that was worth writing permanently), a record of the kings, an account of a journey (log), a written order or commission, legal document, certificate of divorce, deed of purchase, law-book, or even book-learning.

It can also be a verb (saphar) in which case is means to recount or relate specifically to count something or take account of, or reckon

As a participle (sopher) it means scribe (i.e. the counter, secretary, or treasurer)

It has a derived noun as well (misephar) that means number or recount or accounting.

I bring this up in such detail because the root meaning of the word seems to be about history as (if I can use an anachronistic term) a discipline (and partially because I was so flattered that H/G would propose an article about the last Hebrew I did that it made playing with the language that much more fun).  It is about the recording and preserving of important information.  For a modern audience this is an important reminder that writing and documents were used for specific and important things (not just any random blogger saying whatever she wants).

The seal(s):
It seems to me that there are two seals discussed.  One seal seals the whole of the book vs. 10 “For the book shall be sealed by the power of God.”  The other seal seals the specific revelation that gives an account of the world from beginning to end vs 10 “and the revelation which was sealed shall be kept in the book”

The nature of the seals:
If I understand correctly, the seal on a scroll was intended to verify its origin not conceal its contents.  Kings used seals to send messages so that the receiver would know the message was authentic.  Anyone can break a wax seal if they want to read a scroll (what they can’t do is reseal the document).  In the case of the plates, how could a seal be put on them that would physically preclude the holder from having visual access to the material?  So while the physical seal is possible unless there were Da Vinci code type seals that would destroy the document if broken incorrectly, I think the seals here must be more than a physical bind on the document.

I bring this up because there is a logical inconsistency in this question of seals to me.  Charles Anthon wants to see the book, but Martin Harris says he can’t bring the book because the book is sealed.  What?  How does having a seal on a book prevent its transportation?  (Maybe Harris was just using this as an excuse as to why he couldn’t produce the book, but that seems a little unnecessary to put in a prophecy.)  And why would not having the book prevent Anthon from seeing the copied characters?  The Lord specifically say to take “these words that are not sealed” to the learned man.  (Again, maybe just part of the story that Anthon wanted the book for his own career making or that a learned man couldn’t even read the unsealed words, but again why such specific prophecy about the seal and that even unsealed words were still effectually sealed when given to one without authority?)

It seems to me that the seal has less to do with visual access (seeing the plates by the 3 or 8 witnesses leaf by leaf didn’t break the seal presumably), than with authority to interpret.  These seals are intended to withhold accessability because it is authority to read that breaks the seal like the seven seal in the Book of Revelations.  In Revelation John can see the writing on the sealed book.  5:1, “And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside sealed with seven seals.”  The requirement for breaking these seals is worthiness. 5:2 “And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?”

This for me is a return to the question of language.   You have to be righteous not only to articulate your own experiences (and have them preserved in writing) but also to access the record, history of the others who are righteous.  Harkening back to George’s astute question last week of  “Can we assume that as long as history remains a mystery to us, as long as all we can produce is fragmented knowledge, it is a sign that we remain in this general state of insufficient grace to be able to read the meaning of all things?”

If this is correct and the seals are about authority rather than ability, then the question turns to how are authority and writing related.  Throughout the scriptures and particularly in our two chapters, there is an emphasis on language, both spoken and written, as being the property of the righteous.  The number one thing God seems to call servant to do is to prophesy and preach (specifically repentance).  Although those who are learned consider themselves to be the guardians and masters of language their claim is illegitimate.  Like the scribes in the NT who (John 5:39 our favorite scripture to misunderstand) “search the scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life” but are wrong because “they are they which testify of me.” The SCRIBES think they have jurisdiction over the text but because they didn’t find Christ in the language of scripture, they actually have nothing at all.  So the verses about Charles Anthon seem to me a specific incident that shows a pattern of how language is not the property of the learned, but of the Lord.  Since it is the word of the Lord which created all things (either literally that by speaking “Let there be. . .” or through the Word–Jehovah (of course in the Latin alphabet Jehovah begins with an I. . .hee, hee)), the power of God is connected to language and only those with authority from God can exercise the use of language through writing or speaking (cf. The Book of Life).

One last little note. . . I think these verses show a pattern of interaction in addition to being a prophecy of an incident is the out-of-place third person plural in verse 16.  “And now, because of the glory of the world and to get gain will THEY say this, and not for the glory of God.”  If this referred only to Charles Anthon, we would expect a singular pronoun rather than a plural.  Perhaps this is a use of the so-called “singular they” retain from earlier English.  However, because it is the only they in the verses about Anthon and it is in the only verse that could easily describe anyone not serving the Lord, I tend to think this shows that the story is one of a pattern.  That pattern is: the Lord calls a prophet and gives him words, the prophet feels insufficient, (the Lord calls a helper,) the unlearned prophet can understand the language/message/vision that the learned cannot.  Maybe it’s just because this pattern is generic but this seems to fit Moses and Aaron versus Pharoh, Joseph of Egypt and Pharoh’s dreams, Jesus and the scribes,. . .

Finally, this relation of language to power and authority underscores the contrast we’ve mentioned several times between the vital dead and the comatose living.  Those who are dead but are still speaking still have power while those who are alive but unrighteous as like zombies.

(1) How does Nephi adapt Isaiah’s text, and what do his methods tell us about what it means to read a scriptural text?

Emerging from this week’s discussion was a re-emphasis, I think, on the materiality of the letter. Nephi is less concerned about the immaterial spirit of Isaiah than he is about its material letter. His model is thus one of allowing the material shape of Isaiah’s text to give form and meaning to the “spirit of prophecy” that inhabits him. This, it seems, is what Nephi means by “likening”: it seems to be less a question of finding “eternal principles” or “spiritual truths” in the text to be likened that then can be reapplied in one’s own experience than it is a question of taking the material letter of the text as a kind of template for making sense of one’s own experience.

Nephi’s method of reading scripture might thus be said to be something somewhat different from both exegesis and hermeneutics: whereas the former of these disciplines is inherently uninterested in anything like “likening,” and the latter is interested in grasping the spirit of a text as it takes shape in its confrontation with a modern reader, Nephi is interested rather in taking the material letter of the text as a guide for faithfully recasting the present entirely. To take up Nephi’s example in one’s own scripture study would thus seem to be to ask one’s own questions and to seek revelation and the spirit of prophecy from within one’s own situation, but always at the same time to be attentive to the letter of the scripture so as to allow it to shape and recast one’s own spiritual experiences.

Or something along those lines, anyway.

(2) What does 2 Nephi 26-27 tell us about the nature of prophecy, typology, and scriptural application?

Building on the model worked out above, one might say that prophecy is, for Nephi, something that is always worked out in the present, perhaps primarily because it is something spiritual. The materiality of the text might thus be opposed to the spirituality (the eventality?) of prophecy (is this something like the opposition between the written and the spoken?). Typology would then be a kind of precipitate of the process of recasting one’s spiritual experiences through the material letter of the scriptural text: what one does to the text while recasting one’s own prophetic experience might be what Nephi would call typology. Typology might then be said to be completely intertwined with “scriptural application,” but can nonetheless be distinguished from it: scriptural application is the recasting of one’s own prophecy through the materiality of the text, while typology is what one does, through the process of that recasting, with the text itself.

Maybe.

(3) How do these chapters provide a clearer understanding of what Nephi is trying to accomplish in his small plates?

It has begun to become clear that Nephi is slowly coming to understand his small plates project to be a part of the book he is prophesying about. At first, though, it would seem that Nephi’s intentions with the small plates were more preparatory to the writing of that book. This is something we will be expanding on much as we move along.

(4) What does 2 Nephi 26-27 teach us about the nature, role, and place of the Book of Mormon itself?

These verses, if we liken them after Nephi’s manner, can be taken to provide an understanding of the Book of Mormon as the suddenly emergent nomination of voided Israel in the midst of a totality dialectically setting the Jews and the Gentiles at odds. That nomination, it would seem, is preparatory to the eschatological events that inevitably follow from such dichotomies, preparatory in the sense that it provides a way out of the climactic disasters to come. The Book of Mormon would thus function to begin assembling a generic people, Israel, who will have been fully subtracted from the dialectical play of the Jews and Gentiles. In the verses following this week’s passage, this genericity will appear even to subtract Israel from the dead.

3 Nephi 27: 6-12

Here goes an attempt at reading these verses. You knew, didn’t you, that I wouldn’t be able to resist speculation? As such, I know this needs more thought and fine tuning, and perhaps more explanation about some of my own assumptions. But I am responding as closely as I can to the text itself and the clues it provides. I believe that what distinguishes a good misreading from a bad one, among other things, is that it tries to respond to the textual clues about reading that the text itself provides. We can consider such clues the metatext of the text. And Nephi provides a great many such clues. That seems to be the essence of what we can learn from Nephi’s use of Isaiah—it hints at what it means to read the Book of Mormon itself and perhaps how to do so.

Verse six establishes simply that the Lord will bring forth unto his addressee (“unto you”) the words of a book that will come from them which have slumbered. Nephi appears to be addressing the remnant of the House of Israel as well as all people anywhere, especially those who have “closed [their] eyes” and rejected the prophets because of iniquity. So it is both a historically specific people of the covenant he addresses (the remnant of the House of Israel, as indicated in the footnote in Mormon 5:12) but also apparently any reader. This is surmised from his opening address in this chapter to the Jews and the Gentiles and to “those who shall be upon other lands, yea, even upon all lands of the earth” (verse 1). We have already raised this interesting question of an overly dichotomized world of Jews and Gentiles. The verses seem to leave open the possibility that such a binary intimates a much broader and whole human family.

So the words of the book will come from those who slumber, presumably meaning those who have died, speaking out of the dust of the earth. What is intriguing is the fact that this slumbering is directly contrasted to the slumbering stupor of the wicked alluded to in verse 5 (“the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of a deep sleep”). The parallel language here, then, suggests that the moment of reading these words both wakes the slumbering dead—revives their pastness into a presence, in both senses of the word—and wakes the slumbering wicked by calling them to a state of repentance and perhaps righteousness. This would suggest that the power to revive the meaning of the words of the dead requires something from the reader, a purification of the heart, a point verse 12 makes most emphatically. (On a side note, this is why I like Gadamer’s argument that prejudice is not the obstacle to authentic textual meaning—it is in fact the vehicle, as long as it is something we are conscious of. We can’t escape the blindness caused by the specificities of our human and historical condition that inform how we read, but we can perhaps invoke them in humility to gain access to God’s meaning. This is what I argued in my 3 Nephi paper. I will attach it for anyone interested.)

Verse 7 reiterates the point made in 26:17 and even repeats the use of the term “sealed.” That is, this book contains words that describe a history of a people (“the things which shall be done among them”) but although these words “shall be written” they are “sealed up” and are unavailable, perhaps unreadable to those “who have dwindled in unbelief.” Verse 7 here rehearses this notion that the Lord reveals his will in books as histories of a people but he seals them, or withholds them from readers until “mine own due time” (verse 10, also echoed in Ether 3:27). This is stated explicitly in 27:8 (“the book shall be kept from them”). Rising to the challenge of reading seems to begin with a recognition of the fact of the Lord’s having withheld the fulness of revelation from us.

Nephi explains that the book contains “a revelation from God, from the beginning of the world to the ending thereof” (7). This seems to be an elaboration on Isaiah’s statement that “the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed….” (vs.11). Here Nephi appears to substitute “the vision of all” with the idea of a totalizing book of revelations of all time. He speaks for several verses before finally returning to the language of Isaiah in the rest of verse 11 and 12 of chapter 29. In the interim it appears that he helps to develop the meaning of Isaiah’s reference to a book that cannot be read by the learned because it is sealed.

And this is my attempt to understand what he adds. While Nephi seems to offer Isaiah’s verses as a prophecy regarding Joseph Smith and the Charles Anton incident, he sets the stage for an even broader meaning. That is, if the episode of the authentication of the translation is a fulfillment of prophecy, it also becomes an allegory for something even broader in implication. Nephi’s implicit allegorization of the Anton incident is anticipated in the allegorizing language of Isaiah himself. Note that Isaiah speaks allegorically when he says: “the vision of all is become unto you as a book that is sealed.” An allegory of what, exactly? Nephi’s explanations, the context of 19^th century experience, and our contemporary perspective would seem to complete the allegory: the rejection of the authenticated translation by a learned man is an allegory of the wisdom of the world and its rejection of revelation, a mistake we must not make. This rejection allegorizes the sacred book as an emblem of a history that is lost to us until sufficient repentance has taken place. The reader is implied to be someone always awaiting a further opening of a sealed book, but because the Book of Mormon itself suggests its own sealed and lost portions and suggests other records waiting to come forth until all revelations (i.e. Isaiah’s “vision of all” or Nephi’s “from the beginning of the world to the ending thereof”) are finally read, it can only serve as an intermediate step, a stepping stone as it were, toward a greater understanding of reading God’s revelations. Even as it reveals, the book keeps us aware of the still slumbering dead, us as perhaps the still slumbering reader, and the sealed book still awaiting translation.

Verses 10 and 11 seems to clarify the distinction between two kinds of sealed books and aid us in understanding this idea. One book is sealed because of pride, wickedness, wisdom of the world. This is the portion of the book given to “another” (the footnote in verse 10 brings us to JSH 1:65 in reference to the Anton incident) but it is not the sealed book that holds “all things from the foundation of the world unto the end thereof” (10). One way of understanding this might be that there is wickedness that prevents some from accepting the divinity of the Book of Mormon and there is the wickedness endemic to the human condition that prevents all of us, even those who accept the Book of Mormon, from being ready to “read by the power of Christ” to the point that “all things shall be revealed until the children of men, which ever have been among the children of men” (11). Can we assume that as long as history remains a mystery to us, as long as all we can produce is fragmented knowledge, it is a sign that we remain in this general state of insufficient grace to be able to read the meaning of all things?

Verse 12 adds an interesting twist. The verse declares that when the book is delivered to “the man of whom I have spoken” (surely, Joseph Smith, no?), “the book shall be hid from the eyes of the world.” Such hiding was earlier spoken of in somewhat more allegorical terms (the slumbering, blind, and dreaming wicked who can’t understand God’s revelations), but here it seems both allegorical and literal: “the eyes of none shall behold it save it be that three witnesses shall behold it.” What seems especially rich about this figural and literal blindess, this figural and literal revelation is that it posits the possibility that these are false dichotomies. A refusal to read a sealed book, on the one hand, is here contrasted with the blessing of seeing the physical plates. The former position is based on a kind of ultimate faith in rationalism to the point that it refuses empirical evidence. The latter on a faith in revelation to the point that it is rewarded with empirical evidence. The authentication of the translation, in other words, will not come from worldly wisdom but from empirical experience, albeit facilitated and supplemented “by the power of God.” The Book of Mormon, although suggestive of God’s many mysteries, is not shrouded in mysticism. It is a book that promises revelation and delivers on its promise. The only caveat being that we should be careful not to overstate what we know, since the great allegorical book of all things from the foundation of the world remains at least partially if not still substantially sealed.

(1) 26:20-22a, of the latter-day Gentiles: churches/combinations
___(2) 26:22b-24, parenthetical assertion of positive thesis
______(3) 26:25, summary of double argument
______(4) 26:26-28, first half of double argument fleshed out
______(5) 26:29-31, second half of double argument fleshed out
___(6) 26:32, (still) parenthetical assertion of negative thesis
___(7) 26:33, theological conclusion: universality
(8) 27:1, of the latter-day Gentiles: indifferent wickedness

As is clear from this structuration, I see verse 32 coming back to the questions raised by verses 22b-24: what is in the earlier passage a positive thesis now becomes a negative thesis. In verses 22b-24, Nephi declares what the Lord does; but in verse 32, he declares what the Lord prohibits. These are both gathered up into the overarching claim they might be said to prop up: that secret combinations are “of the devil.” The positive argument: God works out of love and in the light. The negative argument: God emphatically prohibits murder, robbery, and the like. This seems to me relatively straightforward.

Verse 33, then, summarizes the whole 22b-32 stretch by drawing some theological conclusions. Three times Nephi describes the doings of the Lord in this verse. First: “he doeth that which is good among the children of men.” Second: “he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men.” And third: “he inviteth them all to come unto him,” etc. Goodness, plainness, universality.

This comes back, quite nicely, I think, to what was introduced back in verses 20-22a: there the Gentiles are split into apostate churches and secret combinations, into two dialectically intertwined camps structurally at war. Three things distract such polarizing extremes: goodness, plainness, universality. And so the verse ends with a list of the differences that are thus distracted: black/white, bond/free, male/female, heathen/(Israelite?), Jew/Gentile.

But if chapter 26 thus ends on a note of universality (and emphatically a universality of address, of invitation), chapter 27 opens on a note of (the quite different concept of) totality: “all the nations of the Gentiles and also of the Jews, both those who shall come upon this land and those who shall be upon other lands, yea, even upon all the lands of the earth, behold, they will be drunken with iniquity and all manner of abominations.” From a supplementary address that is effectively indifferent to the polarized totality of social structures (I understand universality to be precisely what breaks with totality), we turn to an reassertion of the presence of that polarized totality. (I hope what I’m saying about universality and totality is not too obscure here. I will offer at least this bibliographical clarification: my thinking derives in important ways here from the philosophical work of Alain Badiou–cf. especially his Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism and, if you are quite daring, his Being and Event. I should mention also that there is a major gap between what I, with Badiou, am saying and what Emmanuel Levinas has to say about infinity breaking with totality: Levinas’s conception of infinity turns out to be, not universality [which is always tied to singularity], but particularity [which is necessarily still caught up in totality: the part is always a part of the whole]. Badiou discusses this problem in Levinas explicitly in his fantastic little book, Ethics: An Essay on the Understanding of Evil.)

This turn from God’s (singular) supplementary invitation (26:33) to the as-yet-unsupplemented totality (made up of the dialectic between particulars) that it supplements (27:1) sets the reader up nicely: if God’s work is to supplement totalities, then the assertion of a latter-day as-yet-unsupplemented totality in 27:1 makes the reader begin to anticipate the announcement of a supplementary word. It will come in verse 6 (in the shape of the immanent text, the “book,” etc.).

Having thus said perhaps all I really want to say about verses 32 and 33 of chapter 26, my task this week, for the most part is to riddle out the discussion of the latter-day Gentile totality as it is described in verses 1-5, preparatory to the advent of the supplementary word. A few questions that will guide my notes and reflections: (1) Ignoring Isaiah, what do verses 1-5 say about the totality? (2) Still ignoring the Isaiah text, how do verses 1-5 set up the advent of the supplementary word in verse 6? (3) Based on the answers to these initial questions, what can be said, finally, about Nephi’s appropriation of Isaiah? Each question will be taken in turn.

(1) Ignoring Isaiah, what do verses 1-5 say about the totality?

This is the question, first and foremost, of content. As such, I’ll address it verse by verse.

27:1

The totality is, from the very beginning, established as being one composed of the polarized relationship between “the Gentiles and also the Jews.” That “the Jews” are attached to “the nations of the Gentiles” with the secondarilizing “also” is important: the Gentiles, it would seem, are the totalizing element of the totality, while the Jews play the role of the emphatically particularizing element of the totality. The Gentiles and the Jews would thus seem to be in a kind of dialectic: the Gentiles define their totality through the exclusion of the Jews, and the Jews define their particularity by their condemnation of the Gentiles. Each thus relies entirely on the other for their self-definition: we have a classic Hegelian dialectic, and thus a class Hegelian totality.

What is quite importantly unnamed in this dialectic is the House of Israel. There is, it should be noted, a rather consistent difficulty in the Book of Mormon (or, in First, Second, and Third Nephi) about the relationship between the terms “the Jews” and “the House of Israel”: it is generally murky how these two groups are meant to be related to one another. But perhaps the quasi-philosophical approach I’m taking here to this text is helpful: Israel goes unnamed here precisely because it will prove to have been, when the book suddenly shows up in verse 6, an unnamed void in the totalized situation. When the book names that void (the promises made to the fathers, the covenants taken from the book that proceeded forth out of the mouth of the Jew, etc.), the totality will be supplemented by a genuinely generic truth (Israel will be made up of repentant Israelites, converted Jews, and helpful Gentiles, etc.). In short, Israel goes unnamed here precisely because it will only be named with the advent of the supplementary word.

I find this fascinating: the Book of Mormon might here be said to be supplementary to the world precisely in its distracting of the polarity between the Jews and the Gentiles, something it accomplishes by naming the void in the situation, namely, scattered Israel. (I apologize for how emphatically Badiouian my language is getting here. Hopefully it can be followed without me having to drag everyone through a few–very rewarding!–philosophy books!)

All this clarified, verse 1 goes to point out that this polarized relationship between the Jews and the Gentiles will have become a worldwide phenomenon: “both those who shall come upon this land [the Americas] and those who shall be upon other lands, yea, even upon all the lands of the earth.” The whole world, it would seem, has been caught up into the totalizing polarity of the Jews and Gentiles, and Israel is being overlooked (essentially voided) everywhere. (Postcolonialism, eat your heart out.)

Finally, Nephi describes those involved in the dialectic as being “drunken with iniquity and all manner of abominations.” It is quite an image, and one that anticipates similar images (taken from Isaiah) in verses 3 and 4.

27:2

Nephi is suddenly talking about some kind of violent theophany. The language is obviously apocalyptic. It should be noted that this verse, even as it quotes Isaiah, at least alludes to 26:6, where Nephi describes the visit of Christ to the Lehites (in Third Nephi). Here, however, the visitation is to the Gentiles-and-Jews.

The visitation is that of “the Lord of Hosts,” the Lord of heavenly armies, such that this “visitation” takes on the meaning of a kind of invasion, but one that has as its features natural phenomena: earthquakes, thunder, tempests, etc. The connection between the arrival of a host of angels and the sudden eruption of violent natural phenomena is made in at least Second Temple Judaism: different angels are assigned to hold different natural phenomena in check, and so the release of natural chaos is a direct result of angelic intervention (or really: the lack of thereof). Whether this is what Nephi has in mind is unclear. (Margaret Barker, of course, surmises that this sort of belief is older than the second temple, and so she finds these kinds of discussions in Isaiah to be evidence of the “Older Testament,” etc. That possibility is, of course, a real one.)

But what seems most important to me is the connection between the constant increase of violence in the dialectical interplay of (the parts of) a totality (cf. Girard, if you will) and the breaking point described here. Nephi himself seems to espouse the idea (again and again in his two books) that two wicked parties at odds with one another will be locked in a pattern of constant escalation that will only come to a full conclusion when frenetic violence breaks out. Nephi generally describes that apocalyptic conclusion in one of two ways: (1) the wicked kill each other; (2) the wrath of God is poured out upon the wicked. Can one assume that these are equivalent? That is, can one assume that the wrath of God never implies a physical violence undertaken on the part of God, but that the wicked destroy the wicked in their own obsessively frenetic violence? If so, the visitation described in this verse may well be taken as a nicely poetic expansion of the idea of the “wrath of God.”

27:3

Here we have the first naming of the supplementary, though only in passing: what is neither Jew nor Gentile is Zion. It is only named here: nothing else is said about it. But of course, it should also be recognized that the name here replaces the name “Ariel” in the original Isaiah text. What can be read into this substitution?

The escalating violence of the dialectical totality is here described in terms of dreams. Tempted as I am to discuss Freud (and Lacan) at some length here, I’ll just say a word or two about this.

At the very least, it can be said that the desire to destroy Zion is entirely fantastic: it is a fantasy. Put another way: the nations themselves, arrayed in all their military glory, is all a fantasy image, an ideological projection.

This takes the clearest shape in the discussion of the hungry/thirsty man dreaming. As Freud points out, one of the most important reasons we dream is to keep us asleep. This is evident from dreams where we take care of some actual physical need in the dream (the common example is urination), thereby fantastically convincing ourselves that there is no need to wake up to take care of things. The Isaiah passage Nephi uses draws on precisely this idea: the hungry man dreams that he is eating, and it is a way of keeping himself asleep; the thirsty man dreams that he drinks, and it is a way of keeping himself asleep.

To compare the scapegoating battle against Zion to this is beautiful. The nations feel a genuine need to destroy Zion, which stands as a constant reminder that their totality is not, in fact, total. But they can only fantasize about destroying Zion. Every time they tell themselves that they have done something to rid the world of the common enemy, they realize all over again that they have done nothing. Their fantasies are a way of keeping themselves blind, asleep, dead to reality.

The apocalyptic pouring out of the wrath of God is precisely the willful blindness of the dialectically intertwined Gentiles and Jews.

27:4

Here Nephi suddenly shifts from speaking in the third person to addressing the Jews and Gentiles themselves in the second person. I’ll take up this question more directly in next section (on structure), but it is worth mentioning here because Nephi is essentially calling the attention of these two groups to the fantastic nature of their fantasies.

I’ll confess I really like what Nephi does to the Isaiah text here. What was originally a parallelism (Stay yourselves / and wonder / cry ye out / and cry) has been split here into two distinct modes of address: the “stay yourselves and wonder” business has remained in the imperative form (Nephi commands the polarized Jews and Gentiles to stay themselves and wonder at what he is describing to them), but the “cry ye out and cry” business has become a prophetic future (Nephi commands his addressees to stay themselves and wonder at the fact that, sometime later on, they will cry out and cry).

The emphasis in the Nephi text, then, is on the marvelous blindness of the Jews/Gentiles: they should be shocked at their own situation, because it will eventually come to an apocalyptic climax.

27:5

This verse follows from the preceding one. If Nephi addresses the Jews/Gentiles in a kind of prophetic present, commanding them to wonder at the prophetic future he announces, he now gives them to understand what might be called the prophetic past (it is a future anterior, a future anterior to the present of the prophetic present of verse 4), in which “the Lord hath poured out upon [them] the spirit of deep sleep.”

Here again is the theme of blindness, unconsciousness, drunkenness, sleep. To be locked in the dialectic is to be structurally unable to see anything else.

And yet verse 6 will introduce into that totality a genuine supplement, something neither the Jews nor the Gentiles will be able to read, so to speak. And this leads to the second question.

(2) Still ignoring the Isaiah text, how do verses 1-5 set up the advent of the supplementary word in verse 6?

This is the question, first and foremost, of structure. Hence, I want to take a preliminary stab at riddling out the structure of the first part of chapter 27. The indentations are meant to mark the temporal position of the events or situations described in each passage:

(1) 27:1, the condition of the latter-day Gentiles: totality
______(2) 27:2-3, the eventual consequence (in the third person)
___(3) 27:4-8a*, the possibility of escape (in the second person)
___(4) 27:8b-x, the story of the emergent possibility (in the third person again)

* I’m dividing verse 8 at “abominations of the people,” such that verse 8b is only “Wherefore the book shall be kept from them.”

What can be said, briefly, about the importance of this structure, and especially about how it orients this whole passage to the advent of the supplementary word in verse 6?

I find especially the temporal logic of these verses interesting. I see them dividing the prophetic future (for us, the simple present) into three “stages.” Stage 1 is described in verse 1: the dialectical totality represented by the (wicked) interrelations of the Jews and Gentiles. Stage 2 is described starting in verse 4: the advent of the Book of Mormon comes as a wake-up call, supplementing the totality described in verse 1. Stage 3 is described in verses 2-3: eventually, the polarized forces making up the dialectic will result in apocalyptic destruction.

Those are the stages in chronological order. But Nephi presents them in a different order: stage 1 (verse 1), stage 3 (verses 2-3), and stage 2 (verses 4+). Nephi thus describes: first, the totality itself; second, the ultimate consequence of the totality’s problematic nature; and then third, the supplementation that allows for a way off of the path toward that ultimate consequence. In other words, Nephi’s way of arranging his prophetic description of our day allows him to show how a kind of necessary logic (the movement from stage 1 to stage 3) can be subverted by the advent of the supplementary Book of Mormon (stage 2).

Of course, Nephi does not actually turn to the advent of the supplementary word until verse 6. Hence, verses 4-5 play an important preparatory role: they turn from stages 1 and 3 to stage 2, but they do not actually announce the book. The shift is marked by the move from third person description to second person address: in verses 1-3, where Nephi describes the inevitable logic of a divided people, he only describes things from a distance, as it were; but in verse 4-5, where Nephi begins to turn to the question of the time between the formation of the totality and the eschatological collapse of the same, he addresses those involved in the totality directly. This direct address is itself already a supplementary word in a sense: Nephi, within the very book he will announce beginning in verse 6, addresses those who will receive the supplementary word. He, in verse 4-5, begins to perform the supplementary word he is about to announce.

This does much to prepare the way, it seems to me, for what comes after.

(I should note also that the second person address only continues, as I point out above, into the beginning of verse 8. After Nephi has performed and introduced the supplementary book, he returns to the dispassionate third person position of descriptive prophecy. We’ll have to ask why next week.)

Content and structure addressed, it is time to take up much more directly the role that Isaiah quotation plays in all of this.

(3) Based on the answers to these initial questions, what can be said, finally, about Nephi’s appropriation of Isaiah?

First, it must be pointed out that the words of Isaiah, at least as they appear in the KJV, are relatively unchanged here. There are changes, of course, and I will address them here, but they are nothing to the kinds of changes Nephi will be making beginning with verse 6, and they are even quite a bit less drastic than the changes Nephi was making to Isaiah in chapter 26. What does this tell us about Nephi’s relationship to these verses in Isaiah 29?

Second, then: what can be said, broadly and positively speaking, about Nephi’s adaptation here? I’ll number some initial thoughts:

(1) Nephi has separated Isaiah 29:3-5 from Isaiah 29:6-10 by half a chapter (the whole second half of chapter 26). In part, this parenthetical aside has allowed Nephi to shift temporal registers between likenings: his likening of Isaiah 29:3-5 took up the text in terms of the Nephites, but his likening here of Isaiah 29:6-10 takes up the text in terms of the Gentiles (vis a vis the Lamanites). There is thus a leap from the era of Moroni (in the likening of Isaiah 29:3-5) to the era of the Gentile-Lamanite entanglement (in the likening of Isaiah 29:6-10). At the same time, of course, the fact that Nephi returns to Isaiah marks the continuity of the story: the destruction of the Nephites—paired with the writing up of the Book of Mormon—will have everything to do with the Gentile-Lamanite situation about to be discussed. (Indeed, one further comment is worth making about this: Isaiah 29:3-5, because of how Nephi edited it to make the voice from the dust a question of a written text to resurface later, essentially disrupts the flow of Isaiah 29:6-10 by its being tied to Isaiah 29:11-12, these two verses being the only two verses in Isaiah 29 that are clearly prose. Hmmm. More on this later.)

(2) 2 Nephi 27:2=Isaiah 29:6 echoes 2 Nephi 26:6 (or rather, 2 Nephi 26:6 echoes Isaiah 29:6=2 Nephi 27:2), a verse that describes the destruction of the Lehites at the time of Christ’s visit to the Americas. At the very least, this suggests some kind of connection between the Lamanite-Nephite difficulties in Helaman and Third Nephi and the Gentile-Jewish difficulties of the last days as Nephi describes them.

(3) Of all five Isaiah verses here taken up (Isaiah 29:6-10), only verse 6, adapted in 2 Nephi 27:2, is subjected to changes in person: the second person is consistently changed to the third person. Because of the association, on Nephi’s part, of Isaiah 29:5 with Isaiah 29:3-4, it could be argued that he had to change Isaiah 29:6 to fit in with the general tenor of Isaiah 29:7-8. But what else might be read into the changes?

(4) Isaiah 29:7, as adopted in 2 Nephi 27:3, has a few significant deletions: “the multitude of” is subtracted from the beginning of teh verse, and, following the substitution of Zion for Ariel, “even all that fight against her and her munition” is also subtracted. What do these deletions suggest, if anything? Is it of any significance that a phrase using the word “multitude” was also subtracted from Isaiah 29:5 back in 2 Nephi 26?

(5) What, we’ve already begun to ask, can be read into the shift from “Ariel” to “Zion”?

(6) Scholars generally separate Isaiah 29:9-10 from Isaiah 29:1-8, taking verses 9-10 to be a distinct text that was only placed side by side with verses 1-8 through some kind of redaction. Nephi’s approach, however, is to link them, using the connecting phrase (which he adds himself): “for behold, all ye that do iniquity.” How does this give us to read Isaiah 29? It is, of course, precisely here that Nephi sets up his major transition from third person discussion to second person discussion, and so it is here, in bridging what scholars generally describe as an unbridgeable gap, that Nephi sets up the real shift towards the advent of the supplementary word (in verse 6). Do we not here have a very interesting clue about how Nephi reads Isaiah? Does this suggest that he imposes unity on a redacted mess? That he looks for patterns that redactors introduced into the text? That he tries to see how the accidental tensions introduced through the redactional process might give one to think one’s own situation? What?

(7) Isaiah 29:10 is a point of some theological contention in the commentaries. It is often connected with Isaiah 6, since both there and here there seems to be the implication that God removes free will by electing certain figures to be hardened. Wildberger, for instance, makes an argument that both passages have to be understood carefully: the hardening is a consequence of one’s willful disobedience. Von Rad, on the other hand, suggests that the theme of hardening should be grappled with more directly: God’s inscrutable plan accomplishes some remarkable things through the hardening of certain hearts. (I’ll confess I find von Rad’s reading to be very fruitful for Latter-day Saint purposes.) At any rate, it is interesting that, however Isaiah himself should be read, Nephi makes a few adjustments so that it is clear that there is agency or free will: the Lord pours out a deep sleep because the Gentiles/Jews have closed their eyes.

Anyway, there are a few thoughts about Isaiah here. But of course I’ve hardly done anything exhaustive. What else deserves attention?

The Four Key Questions

To this point, we’ve paid far too little explicit attention to the four key questions that are meant to guide our discussions. I wanted to tie up the loose ends of my relatively scattered thoughts this week by addressing these questions one by one in terms of the passages I’ve discussed. As I found myself a bit more swamped than I expected in trying to work through these passages, I’ll postpone that task for myself until the discussion summary.

Overall structure of the verses: v. 26-31 work out the two parts of v. 25–the inclusive nature of the gospel, and economics.

The term “Zion”: in the Book of Mormon, used most predominantly in Nephi’s writings, but always in the context of Isaiah.

“Partake” imagery –> Tree of Life, Eden, and “goodness”

Nothing of Isaiah 29 given in these verses –> Heather and Grant give 3 reasons why:

1. Provides rhetorical housekeeping by tying particular points into the extended argument of 2 Nephi 25-30 and laying groundwork for subsequent material
2. Forestalls potential misapprehensions
   • Uses different Isaianic texts to clarify that God is best characterized by his compassion
   • v. 20-22 make the book-reader/Charles Anthon not the sole villain; becomes representative of a much more pervasive problem (see 28:4, 15)
3. Works in allusions to other source texts, justifying his interpretation by an appeal to multiple prophet witnesses
   • Includes: 1 Nephi 11-14, 2 Nephi 6-10 (jacob), Isaiah, Malachi/Zenos, Exodus 20, 2 Nephi 3
   • 2 Nephi 10:13-16
     • “He that fighteth against Zion shall perish” (10:13, 16 from Isa 29:8; cf. 26:30-31)
     • “I will be a light unto them” (10:13; 26:29)
     • “Secret works of darkness and murders” (10:15; 26:22)
     • “Both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female” (10:16; 26:33)
     • Anticipates a theme in 2 Nephi 30: Gentiles = God’s judgment on Israel, but they will also be the means of Israel’s ultimate salvation

H&G: v. 20-33 transition from collective identity (“the Gentiles” in v. 20; “all men” in v. 24) to an individualistic rendering of “all” at v. 33 –> sets up transition from 3rd to 2nd person at 27:3-4

Joe: This passage falls into the Isaiah text more or less where the standard reading sees the tables turning on the Assyrian forces. This is an important breaking point in Isaiah’s text, and Nephi uses it as such

Jenny: “Persuade all men to repentance” becomes a condition for acceptance into the covenant. This may provide a clue as to how Nephi is appropriating Isaiah: in the framework of persuasion to repentance? Repentance (versus “repent”) = a “fundamental ontological reorientation,” constantly in repentance itself